This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> said: > > > We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the > > licenses and attributions and the advertising clauses and so forth. > > Err. We distribute some works, with licenses attached to them > that allow us certain rights on the work in question. We are not > legally allowed to modify the license, so it is a good thing it is > not part of the Work. Advertising clauses are not about the work > itself -- they are about ancillary activities, so are a different > issue. > > > Additionally, we allow pieces of *code* we can't modify to taste - > > the GPL clause that says 'you must display the license when run > > interactively'. > > You have a point about attributions and copyright notices -- > but for the most part these are source issues (apart from not > deleting interactive copyright notices). So no, I do not think that > any of these give invariant sections a free pass. I don't think it gets a free pass either. What I do think is that the issue is not so clear cut as people are making it out to be. "We expect everything to be modifiable" is a nice slogan, except that in reality, it means "we expect everything to be modifiable, except these several bits in the source tree, and well, that bit in the binary object over there, and maybe some others". This is one of the things making me feel as though it is not a fundamental shift in the DFSG to allow some restrictions on modification. I am not sure that I want more restrictions on modification, but my wants and the DFSG are not always the same thing. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature